Jump to content
The Education Forum

What's the package? Lee.


Claude Barnabe
 Share

Recommended Posts

The answer to that question hasn't changed in almost 60 years. LHO responded to BWF's query with “curtain rods”. The other constant through the decades has been the dimensions of the package(sack), as given by BWF, L24in by W5-6in. BWF has never wavered on those stated dimensions. When BWF was shown CE 364, the custom sack made of heavy paper and tape, 38in in length, 7-8in width, he denied it was the same sack he viewed in the back seat of his car carried by LHO, he also considered the exhibit too wide. Ultimately the WC decided BWF was mistaken in his observations. He had to be mistaken. The WC needed a larger sack to accommodate it's predetermined contents: a disassembled carcano rifle (THE weapon found on sixth floor). An assembled carcano has an overall length of 40.1in. A disassembled carcano consists of wooden stock 34in and a receiver/barrel 21in. So a disassembled carcano only afforded a reduction in length of only 6in. Hardly a savings in length and rather bulky in size if someone wanted to surreptitiously bring a rifle into a workplace without raising an eyebrow, on a day when the President of the US is about to parade by your workplace in an open vehicle. Whether a 40in or a 34in sack with contents weighing approximately 7.5 lbs., such a large sack in my opinion would bring attention to the person carrying it into the workplace on that particular day.

I've come to the conclusion that the WC was partly right. The sack did contain a disassembled carcano rifle, at least part of one, the receiver/barrel. The receiver of a carcano measures approximately 21in. The addition of a scope extends the length by 1-2in. BWF described to the WC how LHO carried the sack. Bottom of sack cupped in the palm of LHO's hand, top of sack tucked under his armpit. It fits. Also BWF described the width of the sack as 5 to 6in with tapering on one end. The described width would be the combined height of barrel and scope. I contend that LHO had the bolt/scope end of the barrel cupped in one hand with the other end of the barrel tucked under his armpit. When Jack Doherty gave testimony to the WC he was asked if he saw LHO enter the building, to which he answered yes. Then he was asked if he noticed him carrying a package, his answer was no. It's understandable, I think, for Doherty not to notice a 2ft package containing a rifle barrel tucked under LHO's arm, versus a 3ft bulky package carrying a carcano rifle, I believe he would have noticed easily. During the interrogation of BWF by Capt Fritz, an event which almost came to blows when BWF refused to sign a confession, Frazier revealed that Oswald entered the TSBD with a package and that Oswald had stated the contents were curtain rods. When Fritz interrogated Oswald and asked about the package and contents, LHO denied what Frazier had told Fritz. There was no sack and no curtain rods. LHO stated the only sack he had was his lunch. BWF stated that LHO carried no lunch bag that day. If the sack had indeed contained curtain rods, then LHO would have had no reason to deny its existence, a simple search of the TSBD, perhaps with direction from LHO would have revealed the sack and its contents to be curtain rods and LHO would have proved his innocence. Oswald had to lie to Fritz because he lied to Frazier. It was all a lie.

 

The questions remaining are, how did the carcano wooden stock get into the building and why would LHO incriminate himself by bringing to work on that Friday morning a rifle barrel that could eventually be traced to him?

 

I believe the answer to the first question is, LHO did 'manufacture' the larger heavier sack with materials from the TSBD and used the sack to 'house' the carcano wooden stock. The WC claimed LHO's palm print was on the larger sack. The sack would have been made prior to Nov 8th, his last visit to the Paine residence before Nov 21st. That weekend the sack and contents would have been transferred to LHO's confederate(s), (I use the term here with a double meaning), directly from the Paine garage in Irving during that visit. BWF has never given testimony that 2 sacks were introduced to the TSBD on 2 different occasions. The wooden stock I believe was kept in his military issued duffel bag. Those duffel bags are 36-38 inches in height. LHO easily could have placed the receiver & stock in the center of the bag, stuffing the surrounding volume with clothes, blankets etc. Making the transport of the rifle to and from N.O. without notice. At the point in time when the wooden stock was transferred to the custom large sack, I believe the receiver was placed in the blanket on the floor of the Paine garage. Making eventual retrieval more accessible. The profile produced under the blanket would barely be noticeable. The carcano wooden stock in the large sack was introduced into the TSBD on the morning of the 22nd by the soon to be shooter in the sixth floor window. Sometime on that morning LHO could have ushered in his confederate through the back door in the dock area and brought him to the 7th floor where the shooter would have remained undisturbed the entire morning. There assembling the stock of the carcano with the receiver brought in by LHO. A total of 5 screws. The shooter would have had hours to make the assembly and familiarize himself with the weapon. Recall the elevator race at 10 before noon on that Friday. Charles Givens testified that he saw LHO standing by the elevators as the elevator passed the fifth floor. I now think LHO stayed behind to fetch his confederate on the 7th floor and help build the snipers nest. Givens also gave testimony that he returned to the sixth floor after using the restroom to retrieve a pack of cigarettes and his jacket which he had forgotten. When he reached the sixth floor he saw LHO by the snipers window. His confederate must have been huddled behind the boxes. I believe the DPD found 2 sacks on the sixth floor. The smaller sack contained LHO's palm print, that print was placed in evidence. However, the 2 sacks in evidence posed the possibility of a LHO co-conspirator. Since the larger sack could be shown to carry both pieces of the disassembled rifle, the smaller sack was discarded but the print remained. There is also the evidence of another LHO palm print on the underside of the barrel, i.e. the side facing the wooden stock when assembled. It would have been quite natural for someone to carry the barrel holding it in that fashion. Some may argue that the print on the barrel was fabricated. However, why would the fabrication stop there. Why not place a palm print on the underside of the wooden stock where someone would actually hold it when firing the rifle. LHO's finger print was also found on one of the boxes of the assembled snipers nest. I believe he was there assisting his confederate. Amazingly no other discernible prints were found on the weapon. Which includes the wooden stock, trigger, trigger housing, ammunition clip and as well as the shell casings and remaining live rounds. The WC could not prove a chain of possession for the ammo and clip belonging to LHO. That lack of evidence can be used to further support my contention that LHO's confederate supplied both the ammo and the ammo clip. Sylvia Meagher raised the issue of the ammo clip not being in the proper chain of evidence. She states that the ammo clip was not mentioned until September '64 when the Warren Report was issued. Many have pointed to this episode as proof the DPD was complicit in fabricating evidence. Recently I read an article about Tom Alyea, he had moved to the Tulsa OK region. In the article in what seemed to be a very casual mention. Mr. Alyea states that there were 3 shells found in the sniper region, 1 full round ejected from the rifle AND there were 2 rounds left in the clip. That makes 6 rounds, a full clip. It's my understanding that a 'button' exist in the trigger housing which when pressed allows the clip to be removed from the top, where it is initially dropped in. (Note: google 'tom alyea tulsa world' to read the article) What the incident proves is that the DPD were sloppy and in this instance at least did not fabricate evidence. Also note, in this scenario, no evidence is fabricated, no one is lying in there testimony. There was a time when I believed the testimony of Charles Givens was a fabrication. A gross attempt to place LHO at the snipers nest. Coerced by the DPD because he had a prior record and a black man in the deep south. I don't believe that anymore.

 

NOTE: The scenario presented above reconciles several issues; BWF was correct on his description of the sack carried by LHO; the larger sack which held the carcano wooden stock was present at the crime scene and not a DPD fabrication (a picture exists of DPD detectives exiting the building with the sack); explains how the ammo and clip were introduced to the crime scene; and why LHO's prints are not present on other crime scene artifacts.

 

The answer to the second question of self incrimination depends on who you think LHO was. Lacking an honest investigation and denied a trial, the guilt or innocence of LHO is left to the individual. And the individual forms an opinion based on interpretation of available evidence and one's 'read' of LHO's character and one's perception of those who influenced him.

 

I was 10 years of age when JFK was murdered and through my teen years I took little interest in the event. That all changed in 1975, I was a student at UMASS and Mark Lane came to the campus with the film. The first books I read were Rush to Judgment of course, and Accessories After the Fact. I've read many more books and articles about the assassination since then and those readings fostered the opinion of LHO's innocence. So, who was LHO? An uneducated, well read Marxist, easily duped into being a patsy. Or a true American patriot, an intelligence asset who tried to save the life of a beloved American President. Those views will also color one's opinion of LHO's defection to Russia. Intelligence asset, part of a defection program or an adventurist Marxist. Until recently I held the belief that LHO was innocent. Then I read Nelson Delgado's WC testimony and that changed my view of who LHO really was.

 

Delgado was LHO's best friend at Marine Air Control Squadron, Santa Ana, California. LHO's last deployment prior to his hardship discharge. They hung out together, went to Tijuana Mexico together, held similar political views and social values. Both had similar IQ. There was a mutual respect. Delgado paints a picture of LHO that reflects many of the characteristics and traits that has been written about LHO as a child and adolescent. A young Marine who had a disdain for social injustice and economic disparity. Both Delgado and LHO felt the Castro revolution in Cuba would end the tyranny of Batista and bring prosperity to the common people. Both thought highly of Fidel Castro and thought him to sincerely have the interest of the Cuban people at heart. Both wanted to join Castro's revolution and even help to export that revolution to other parts of Latin America that they felt was oppressive. Delgado thought that LHO had even gone to the Cuban Consulate in Los Angeles to obtain info on how to join Castro's revolution. Both had envisioned that with an honorable discharge in-hand they could become officers in Castro's revolutionary army. Delgado in his WC testimony recounts how LHO routinely received mailing pamphlets that he believed were from the Cuban Consulate. Delgado also recounts a personality characteristic that has been a refrain in LHO life. His impertinence. Delgado states that LHO would routinely ignore orders from superiors who he felt had inferior intelligence, which on occasion got him in trouble. He would espouse his Marxist ideals to anyone who would listen. Argue over the merits of his ideas then walk away if things got too heated. He openly espoused Marxism over capitalism, read articles and books in the Russian language despite the leering of the other Marines. Delgado paints a picture of a true Marxist believer and a wanna be revolutionary. That final point is what drove him to his participation of the events on November 22nd 1963.

 

I now view LHO as someone who wanted to make a difference in the world. A believer in revolution for social and economic justice. When he spoke in New Orleans on the WDSU radio in August '63, he stated he was a Marxist. I believe he spoke the truth. (refer to National Archives Chapter 7 JFK Assassination Records) In '59 when he defected to Russia, I believe he did so with the intent of eventually going to Cuba. However, he met Marina fell in love, fathered a child, so those dreams were placed on hold. For the moment. His sojourn in Russia taught him that he didn't like Russian Leninism. When he returned to the USA, the intel services didn't quite know what to make of him, so they tried to use him. I believe LHO was a willing participant, willing to be used by both FBI and CIA, it afforded him some extra cash but he was NOT a true believer. Just willing to be used. He was using them as much as they were using him. At the start of '63 LHO wanted to resume his dream of becoming a revolutionary. He made multiple attempts at getting Marina and the kid(s) back to Russia knowing they would be cared for and that would allow him to pursue his dream of joining Castro's revolution, perhaps even join forces with Che Guevara. Sometime ago, unfortunately I cannot cite the pub, I read an account of how LHO would dry fire his carcano on the porch of his apartment in N.O. That was him dreaming of joining the fight. But the family was still in the way. Dick Russell's account of RCN in the TMWKTM, presents a case for Oswald being approached by Miami Cubans exiles posing as Castro G2 agents (Angel & Leopoldo) in order to enlist LHO in their assassination attempt on JFK. With the help of those G2 agents LHO thought he could fulfill his dream.

 

I propose that the exile attempt to enlist LHO in their plan, worked. However, eliminating a threat to the Castro revolution, by removing JFK, I believe would not have been enough to get LHO to allow himself to be implicated. The G2 impersonators had to promise him something he really wanted. That is, a chance to fight along side Fidel's revolutionaries. That's what LHO yearned for since '59. So why do I feel confident in this scenario? On the morning of the 22nd, prior to leaving the Paine residence, LHO left $170 cash on the dresser, LHO left his wedding ring with Marina and replaced it with his Marine Corps ring. It's clearly visible when he lifts his clenched handcuffed fists in that famous photo in the DPD after his arrest. It's always puzzled me, why was he wearing his MC ring and for that matter why he still had it? I can cite 2 possible reasons. First, when he gave a speech in Mobile Alabama before the students at Spring Hill College about life in Russia, his notes contain a scribbling about a military overthrow of the US government and that the only branch of the service that could execute such a coup is the US Marine Corps. The note however was never mentioned in the speech. Second, he was a Marine and he was being afforded an opportunity to fight for the oppressed. As a former Marine, LHO believed he would be accorded an officers rank in the revolution (statement from Nelson Delgado testimony). He did not intend to return home that day. That's the reason he was comfortable with bringing his carcano receiver/rifle barrel to work that morning. Since he was about to leave the country to fight for a cause he believed in, the tracing of the weapon back to him wasn't a concern. He would be missing anyway. That morning he left his wedding ring behind, put on his MC ring and did not pack a lunch as was his custom. LHO's work clipboard, found on the fifth floor was not filled not even partially filled. He did no work that morning. If he did no work that morning, what was he doing on the sixth floor at noon? Had he been an unwitting patsy, unaware of what was about to happen, he would have gone about his work as he normally did every day. He was preoccupied with something else that morning. I'm confident that the sack contained the carcano receiver. He probably used the same sack he walked into the Furniture Mart with when he inquired about the gun shop. His rifle was disassembled at that time as well. The debate will rage on as to whether or not LHO had possession of a rifle. I believe it is beyond a reasonable doubt that he did. How he came in possession of it is another story. The testimony of Gertrude Hunter, Ms Whitworth's friend who was at the Furniture Mart made note of how stunning Marinas' eyes were. Very memorable. We've all seen pictures of a young Marina and her eyes are the first attribute anyone would notice. Ms Hunter also mentioned that she had previously seen Marina and another tall woman at a service station. That was when she was still pregnant with Rachel. I have no doubt that LHO had a rifle in his possession and it was disassembled.

 

LHO's paper sack contained the barrel of the assembled rifle found on the sixth floor that LHO carried into work that morning. How the wooden stock was brought in is an open question because though my scenario of its entry is plausible, there are no eye witnesses. Perhaps his confederate(s) brought the stock in that morning or LHO brought it in on some previous week, unnoticed. It's not knowable. But obviously an assembled weapon was found. Since LHO's prints are not on the wood stock I must assume his confederate performed all of the assembly of the weapon that morning. I don't believe LHO fired any shots from the TSBD. His cheek paraffin test were negative. If a conspiracy to manufacture evidence to frame LHO existed within the DPD, why wasn't the cheek paraffin test forged? There is a plethora of eye witness testimony and anecdotal data that places someone else in the SE corner window. There are threads on this forum that accomplish that. As to accomplices, LHO thought he was collaborating with Castro's agents, he had no clue. But I believe someone (persons) in the DPD and/or Dallas Sheriff Dept was a shooter in the SE corner window. There's evidence someone was re-arranging boxes at the window up to 60sec after the last shot. It was not LHO. No one with a clear mind would allow themselves to be shooting from a tall building at such a high profile target and expect to have a means of escape. The shooter simply stayed in-place until he could blend in with the law enforcement search. Luke Mooney testified to ascending the back stairwell of the TSBD approximately 5 minutes after the last shot was fired and encountered plainclothes officers on the stairwell. They unfortunately were not identified. As an aside, it would be interesting to talk with Bonnie Ray Williams today (78yrs old?), he may still be alive. A thread on this forum dealing with the activity in the SE corner window places BRW on the sixth floor as late as 12:25 prior to his departure to the 5th floor to meet Norman and Jarman. BRW must know the identity of those who no doubt held him at gun point for a time. Truly testified that 'this whole thing really shook him up'.

 

In the above scenario, I believe LHO is guilty of being an accessory before the fact. I now have doubts about his innocence in the Tippit killing as well. LHO's paraffin test on his hands were positive. LHO was an accessory in the brutal killing of a president that left 2 children fatherless. Two days later his own children would be fatherless and he may have been responsible for leaving the Tippit family fatherless. All in the pursuit of a noble ideal but so misdirected. That's the tragedy.

 

 

 

Edited by Claude Barnabe
correct elevator sequence
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Claude Barnabe said:

AND there were 2 rounds left in the clip.

How did Tom Alyea know there were two rounds left in the clip? Having read the article in question, I find Alyea offering no substantiation for this claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct Mr Murr, the article does not explain Alyea's claim. However, if the ejected round had been the final live round, i.e. only 4 rounds were loaded, the clip would have fallen through the bottom of the rifle and should have been found on the floor of the snipers nest along with the spent shells. That was not the case. Since a clip had to be used in the assassination to support the firing of 3 rounds in 6 seconds and no clip was photographed on the floor of the snipers nest, then the clip must have remained in the rifle which means that live round(s) remained in the clip. Had that clip been on the floor of the snipers nest I'm sure DPD would have been eager to photograph it. I did remark in the topic that a catch release button is in the trigger housing. Perhaps Fritz or Day used it to lift the clip out of the rifle and Alyea noticed the rounds. Obviously no pictures exist of the event. The DPD were very sloppy in their evidence collection. The clip was not mentioned until the Warren Report was released. A glaring mistake. I have reached out to Mr Overall the journalist who wrote the article in Tulsa World about Mr Alyea's experience asking if he can recall more detail about Alyea's claim.

Alternative scenario: When Fritz ejected the live round, he must have noticed the other rounds in the clip. For purposes of safety he loaded and ejected the other 2 rounds.

Edited by Claude Barnabe
scenario update
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Claude:

While I agree that if C2766 was used in the assassination of JFK a clip of some manner and proper manufacture would have been used in order that three shots could have been fired within the theoretical time limitation of 6 seconds. However... 

8 hours ago, Claude Barnabe said:

if the ejected round had been the final live round, i.e. only 4 rounds were loaded, the clip would have fallen through the bottom of the rifle and should have been found on the floor of the snipers nest along with the spent shells.

Are you aware that the Firearms Panel of the HSCA repeatedly test fired the alleged weapon of the assassination utilizing "the" clip - CE 575 - and the proper 6.5mm WCC ammunition and among the conclusions they rendered was the following: "When the last cartridge was chambered, the cartridge clip remained in the magazine instead of falling out as it should have."[7HSCA365] I have personally examined CE 575 as well as having it re-examined by members of the NARA staff. In comparing the clip as it resides at NARA with multiple clips of the same manufacture that I have in my collection, the only apparent visible difference is that the CE 375 clip displays a slight "bent" appearance, which may or may not account for its refusal to "fall out" when tested by the HSCA. However, this is a hypothetical nuance on my part. Whether the clip displayed this same bent feature when it was first examined is unknown to me. And it does not appear bent as photographed by the FBI for CE 575. But this is, of course, merely the tip of the iceberg, as it were.

FWIW

Gary Murr

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary:

I was not aware of the HSCA Firearms Panel assessment of the clip held by NARA. So CE 575 has a 'bend' characteristic that is not present 'with multiple clips of the same manufacture'. Too bad the weapon wasn't tested with those other clips as well. I have seen multiple videos of the carcano being fired with the clip easily falling out after the last round was chambered, like the clip was too small for the magazine. I place my faith in the eye witness account of Tom Alyea. Gary, you mentioned the clip does not appear bent in the photo of CE 575, perhaps after 15 years of storage at NARA the clip was not handled properly. From the CE 575 photo the clip looks rather fragile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wondering if we've been 'conditioned' over the years to believe that the only way the rifle could have got into the TSBD is by Oswald breaking it down and taking it in the "paper sack"?

The rifle that was supposedly ordered was advertised as being 36" long. The rifle supposedly delivered was 40.2" long; that's a difference of ~4". If that was delivered to Oswald, would he (assuming he received the rifle) have noticed the difference in length?

When the paper sack was fabricated, maybe whoever made it thought, or was told, that it needs to be 38" long (to cater for a 36" rifle as the person thought it was 36" long since that is what was ordered, and the 4" difference hadn't been noted) with an additional 2" to allow for folding the end over the fully assembled rifle.

When the rifle was placed in the sack it was then noticed that 2" of the end of the barrel was sticking out of the end. This is a dilemma but is surely easily resolved, but not by deciding the only answer is to dismantle the rifle to make it fit but just place, say, a standard paper grocery bag over the protruding 2" of barrel?

Or...

The rifle was taken into the TSBD fully assembled.

Another thing...If I recall correctly, the rifle was found upside down i.e. resting on the scope? Again, we seem to have been conditioned to believe is that the scope on the rifle was faulty during the assassination (assuming it was used) - but it may have been ok until the rifle was dropped between stacks of boxes in an upside down position i.e. it landed on the scope and that's when the damage occurred?

Edited by Ian Lloyd
Typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hello Ian,

By 'conditioned', you must be referring to the WC version of how the rifle was introduced into the TSBD. That's a fair statement. The WC concluded logically, since a 38” paper sack was found at the scene of the crime and a fully assembled carcano is over 40” in length then the rifle must have been disassembled. That's a reasonable deduction by the WC. Ian, you introduce the possibility that an additional smaller sack was placed over the end of the larger sack to conceal the weapon. I made the argument that BWF was accurate in his assessment of the length of the sack. Two feet. That dimension is backed by BWF sister Linnie Randle and also by Ms Whitworth of the Furniture Mart. She estimated the sack to be 15” to 18”. A discrepancy from the 2' but notable in the difference from WC length of over 3'. The BWF sack dimensions dictate that the rifle be disassembled and also that only the receiver/barrel can be placed in the sack. Therefore LHO must have brought into the TSBD the receiver/barrel. That conclusion is reinforced by the fact that no curtain rods were found in the TSBD.

Edited by Claude Barnabe
correct typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Claude Barnabe said:

Hello Ian,

By 'conditioned', you must be referring to the WC version of how the rifle was introduced into the TSBD.

Yes.

That's a fair statement.

The WC concluded logically, since a 38” paper sack was found at the scene of the crime and a fully assembled carcano is over 40” in length then the rifle must have been disassembled.

(Assuming that oswald took the rifle into the TSBD)...I wouldn't call it logical - What seems illogical to me is that, for the sake of ~2" of barrel protruding from the top of the sack, that he felt it necessary to dismantle the rifle knowing that he would have to re-assemble the rifle in the TSBD without being seen, rather than just get some kind of paper e.g. a grocery bag, to cover it. He would also have all the various parts and screws etc. rattling around inside the bag (unless we say there was another, smaller bag inside the sack to contain these small parts?).

That's a reasonable deduction by the WC.

Really?

Ian, you introduce the possibility that an additional smaller sack was placed over the end of the larger sack to conceal the weapon.

I just introduce an option/example for covering the protruding 2" of the barrel.

I made the argument that BWF was accurate in his assessment of the length of the sack. Two feet. That dimension is backed by BWF sister Linnie Randle and also by Ms Whitworth of the Furniture Mart. She estimated the sack to be 15” to 18”. A discrepancy from the 2' but notable in the difference from WC length of over 3'. The BWF sack dimensions dictate that the rifle be disassembled and also that only the receiver/barrel can be placed in the sack.

So, are you suggesting that another bag/sack or some other receptacle was used to transport the stock separately?

Therefore LHO must have brought into the TSBD the receiver/barrel.

He must have?

That conclusion is reinforced by the fact that no curtain rods were found in the TSBD.

But neither of BWF nor LMR said (or saw) that the bag contained the rifle either.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Ian Lloyd said:

(Assuming that oswald took the rifle into the TSBD)...I wouldn't call it logical - What seems illogical to me is that, for the sake of ~2" of barrel protruding from the top of the sack, that he felt it necessary to dismantle the rifle knowing that he would have to re-assemble the rifle in the TSBD without being seen, rather than just get some kind of paper e.g. a grocery bag, to cover it. He would also have all the various parts and screws etc. rattling around inside the bag (unless we say there was another, smaller bag inside the sack to contain these small parts?).

Ian,

Not sure you read my origination thread piece in its entirety. In my scenario, LHO had an agreement with the fake G2 agents to bring to the TSBD on that Friday morning the receiver/barrel of the 40” carcano and they, the G2 agents or a representative (hint: DPD or Dallas Sheriff), would bring the wooden stock with sack provided by LHO made of TSBD material. In return LHO was promised a role in Castro's revolution.

30 minutes ago, Ian Lloyd said:

But neither of BWF nor LMR said (or saw) that the bag contained the rifle either.

What BWF and LMR described was a sack with dimensions that 'perfectly' fit the the receiver/barrel of the carcano rifle in evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did read it - the hypothesis still relies on the rifle being broken down but, if I am reading it correctly, also requires 2 bags and additional people separately bringing different parts of the rifle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ian, correct.

I posit the 'fake' G2 agents when they approached LHO with the offer of joining the Cuban revolution, tested his resolve to becoming a revolutionary by getting him to use his own rifle. As a means of assuring his participation both sides agreed to bring to the TSBD on the morning of Friday Nov 22 their respective rifle components i.e., the disassemble carcano. LHO's confederates provided the ammo and an ammunition clip which LHO did not possess. And yes there would have been 2 sacks. The smaller of which would be discarded from the evidence chain or due to DPD sloppiness merely disregarded as non essential. This scenario resolves the puzzling reasoning of why LHO would allow himself to participate in the assassination using his own weapon.

Edited by Claude Barnabe
changed last sentence
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note to Gary Murr:

Mr Overall the author of the article about Tom Alyea did contact me by email. He stated that his memory of the interview unfortunately was not 'detailed' and could not answer my question regarding the clip. He did have this to add however, "He was polite and courteous, but rather reluctant to do the interview, as I recall. I had to talk him into it. And I don't think he enjoyed it." Sometime after the original interview he attempted to reach Mr Alyea once more but he was no longer at the address or phone number. Another opportunity missed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/8/2022 at 9:08 AM, Claude Barnabe said:

 The BWF sack dimensions dictate that the rifle be disassembled and also that only the receiver/barrel can be placed in the sack. Therefore LHO must have brought into the TSBD the receiver/barrel. That conclusion is reinforced by the fact that no curtain rods were found in the TSBD.

Illogical jump, Claude, from BWF's description of the size means the receiver was in the sack.  And then another leap from that to LHO must have brought the receiver to the TSBD. I'm not saying your theory is wrong, just that  this paragraph is set up as a syllogism and it fails, logically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/8/2022 at 10:05 AM, Claude Barnabe said:

Ian,

Not sure you read my origination thread piece in its entirety. In my scenario, LHO had an agreement with the fake G2 agents to bring to the TSBD on that Friday morning the receiver/barrel of the 40” carcano and they, the G2 agents or a representative (hint: DPD or Dallas Sheriff), would bring the wooden stock with sack provided by LHO made of TSBD material. In return LHO was promised a role in Castro's revolution.

What BWF and LMR described was a sack with dimensions that 'perfectly' fit the the receiver/barrel of the carcano rifle in evidence.

When did LHO make these two bags?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony,

I should have stated my major premise (it was implied – the rifle was discovered assembled on the sixth floor TSBD). Since the description of the sack carried by LHO as stated by BWF could not carry the larger portion of the disassembled rifle, i.e., the wooden stock, then therefore the sack must have carried the receiver/barrel. Minor premise, no curtain rods were ever found. The smaller sack was a typical store bag as described by BWF. The larger custom made heavy sack had to be constructed before the weekend of November 8th from materials at the TSBD. That was the last weekend LHO visited Irving prior to his visit on the 21st.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...